Better question: How are you guys handling counteranalysis in your practice exams?

crim law. **follow this on all your crim law murder hypos...works like a charm. discuss in the order listed here. only discuss degrees of murder after you have gone through possible justifications, excuses, and mitigations.

Better question: How are you guys handling counteranalysis in your practice exams?

crim law. **follow this on all your crim law murder hypos...works like a charm. discuss in the order listed here. only discuss degrees of murder after you have gone through possible justifications, excuses, and mitigations.

Question: how have y'all been internalizing the things you learn from PTs? Like, if you realize you missed an issue/didn't cover it properly, what do you do to ensure that you don't make the same mistake again?

crumpetsandtea wrote:Dude I am so sad I missed like 20 pages of this thread.

Y'all are awesome. I'm going to adopt the CSWS motto too

Question: how have y'all been internalizing the things you learn from PTs? Like, if you realize you missed an issue/didn't cover it properly, what do you do to ensure that you don't make the same mistake again?

I am just making a list of issues that I missed and adding it to my attack outline. Also, I think writing about the issue you missed would be a good idea too (kind of like a treatise).

crumpetsandtea wrote:Dude I am so sad I missed like 20 pages of this thread.

Y'all are awesome. I'm going to adopt the CSWS motto too

Question: how have y'all been internalizing the things you learn from PTs? Like, if you realize you missed an issue/didn't cover it properly, what do you do to ensure that you don't make the same mistake again?

crumpetsandtea wrote:Dude I am so sad I missed like 20 pages of this thread.

Y'all are awesome. I'm going to adopt the CSWS motto too

Question: how have y'all been internalizing the things you learn from PTs? Like, if you realize you missed an issue/didn't cover it properly, what do you do to ensure that you don't make the same mistake again?

Better question: How are you guys handling counteranalysis in your practice exams?

crim law. **follow this on all your crim law murder hypos...works like a charm. discuss in the order listed here. only discuss degrees of murder after you have gone through possible justifications, excuses, and mitigations.

That looks good. Is the credited way to make a criminal law one page checklist?

Hmm one page checklist, maybe...I'd have to work on it! Generally, murder is the biggest/longest issue on the exam, so that's why I use this. If you've memorized your outline, you could probably just get by with this template.

LSL wrote:Today has been draining because of all the negativity from fellow classmates. The common complaints:

"God, I hate the way the professor taught this..."

"Everyone is so fucking stupid and they waste time asking (what I personally perceive to be) stupid questions"

"We were never told what to do about thing A or thing B"

"Why do the profs even assign reading so close to exams, we have shit to learn!"

Brothers and sisters, we are above this shit. CSWS. Rise above the negativity and keep your eye on the prize. If someone starts complaining, you start walking. If you're in class, start looking at your computer. Whether our classmates are playing head games trying to psyche you out with this or just genuinely panicked, keep it drama free. We will beat the law exams, and we will beat law school.

CSWS!!!

People in my section still haven't caught onto the idea that when a professor teaches 2 competing rules for the same situation (mostly in torts, but in contracts as well), you should probably analyze the hypo on the exam using both of them...

2 days on, 1 day off, because it's time to get down to work. Hitting legs tonight - because no matter what happens on the exam, I'll always be one of the only people in the school who's not afraid to get under the bar for some squatz.

I'm thinking that for some of the issues in Civ Pro (Jurisdiction), Contracts (Damages), and other classes that I know I'll get a hypo on in the exam that I might create a checklist/model answer outline to use. What are people's thoughts about this?

Having trouble figuring out where to put defenses. Is it better to argue at the end or within breach?

Feedback is a gift. I'll offer some analysis (all predicated on your class being similar to mine):

#2/#3: Even for an attack outline I wouldn't be comfortable with this less of simplification. Throw together some acronyms for those nuanced duties and standards of care for quick memory recall. #4: Don't forget about customs, Res Ipsa, and evidence of breach (actual/constructive/business practice rule). Also, I'm interested to know what you mean by "trying to avoid this" for BPL. BPL is a very straightforward concept. This is basic negligence analysis 101. When in doubt, BPL. You need to attack your weaknesses, don't shy away from them. My prof. loves it, I'll PM supplments he's provided on it if you'd like. #5: A great layer analysis for Causation: 1) unexpected harm - yes; 2) unexpected manner - yes (unless very unforeseeable than superseding); 3) unexpected type - no; 4) unexpected victim - no. Wagon mound 1 is the closest approx. if you studied that case. Defenses: Best approach is to talk about these issue by issue, and then at the end as well. Don't want to miss anything.

Having trouble figuring out where to put defenses. Is it better to argue at the end or within breach?

Feedback is a gift. I'll offer some analysis (all predicated on your class being similar to mine):

#2/#3: Even for an attack outline I wouldn't be comfortable with this less of simplification. Throw together some acronyms for those nuanced duties and standards of care for quick memory recall. #4: Don't forget about customs, Res Ipsa, and evidence of breach (actual/constructive/business practice rule). Also, I'm interested to know what you mean by "trying to avoid this" for BPL. BPL is a very straightforward concept. This is basic negligence analysis 101. When in doubt, BPL. You need to attack your weaknesses, don't shy away from them. My prof. loves it, I'll PM supplments he's provided on it if you'd like. #5: A great layer analysis for Causation: 1) unexpected harm - yes; 2) unexpected manner - yes (unless very unforeseeable than superseding); 3) unexpected type - no; 4) unexpected victim - no. Wagon mound 1 is the closest approx. if you studied that case. Defenses: Best approach is to talk about these issue by issue, and then at the end as well. Don't want to miss anything.